Share this

Newt Gingrich turned heads yesterday by announcing plans to establish a permanent colony on the moon by the end of his second term as president, the Washington Post reports. The Republican presidential candidate also rebuked Mitt Romney for his pushback on Gingrich’s “zany” ideas. “I accept the charge that I am grandiose and that Americans are instinctively grandiose,” Gingrich told a cheering Florida crowd.

Is Gingrich off his rocker when it comes to plans for a colony on the moon? Or do his plans portray him as an innovative, scientifically-minded presidential candidate?

Leave it to Newt to pander to his audience. Of course, in Florida's space coast area which is hard hit with layoffs in the space industry, he would say this to gather votes. Real scientists know it is fantasy. "Off his rocker" may be harsh, but maybe "off his meds" is the term I have heard bantered around in Florida.

Unfortunately many younger Americans will never know the pride we all felt on that warm July afternoon in 1969 when American Neil Armstrong became the first man to step foot on the moon. It was a time of incredible national pride and hope for the future for all Americans.

Strange in hearing Gov. Romney’s response I couldn’t help but wonder why no one thought President Kennedy was off his rocker when in the early 1960’s he set the goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Surely that challenge by our president was far more ‘zany’ than Speaker Gingrich’s. But they called President Kennedy a leader with courage and foresight for having the guts to make that challenge. So what kind of leadership does it show for Gov. Romney that he calls this same kind of vision for the future “zany”.

Add to this the fact that so many of the advances we have made in technology in the past 40 years are the result of the efforts of NASA and the space program. If that is not enough we should remember that the Chinese know what an energetic and vibrant space program means to a world power and they are franticly pushing their space program to get to the moon. What do the Chinese know that we have forgotten, perhaps Mr. Gingrich sees it, obviously Gov. Romney does not.

At this point, the most compelling reason I can think of that Newt is trying to start a moon colony is that perhaps he can send Republican voters who make over $200,000 a year - also known as "The Romney Demographic" - there for the rest of the primary season.

On a more serious note, this is Newt's way of trying to get some of that JFK aura, circa 1960, going. He thinks big things, you see. Grandiosity thy name is Newt. The problem is he has the JFK woman thing going on, not much else. We're in a different era, where his party thinks fixing a pothole is wasteful government spending. Good luck on making us The Jetsons.

Although, on the bright side, if he did accomplish this, next time Marianne Gingrich gives an interview about their marriage, he could go all Jackie Gleason on her and exclaim, "To the moon, Marianne!"...and he might actually be able to make that happen.

Many Floridians see NASA as a vital cog in the Sunshine State’s economy and a key ingredient of American exceptionalism. Let us not forget that when President Obama chose to take the nation’s space program in a “new direction,” the state’s entire congressional delegation gave him more than an earful.

Is Newt Gingrich pandering for votes? Let’s put it this way, in an effort to hold off Mitt Romney, the former House Speaker is leaving no rock unturned, both in Florida and in outer space.

Gingrich actually has this right in terms of manned space exploration.

We should only send people into deep space when we intend to stay by establishing a permanent base. Sending humans to simply visit Mars is a massive waste, for example, in terms of efficient exploration. By the time we could get to Mars robots will be able to do everything humans can do, at one-hundreth of the cost.

The problem is, we cannot remotely afford to pay to establish bases on the moon and Mars now. Grandiose is for fiscally flush times. The fiscal crisis is the biggest threat to America today, not Chinese astronauts.

Space is the final frontier; but on this one, the only space is the vast emptiness and lack of credibility in Gingrich’s proposals.

That Gingrich would put himself in the same box as Lincoln and JFK and describe them and Americans as "grandiose" speaks volumes about his own persona and lack of judgment. America could use a jolt of imagination to make itself start thinking again about its greatness as a nation. But after billions expended on nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, the last thing we need is nation building on the moon.

Governing is about choosing and setting priorities; and Americans on the moon is well…. not one of them right now. This whole tick-tock about space is vintage Newt - geared to a NASA friendly state; and designed to show everyone that he’s the smartest guy in the room on matters big and small. And it’s that combination that best sums up the Gingrich persona - a man who combines profound grandiosity with deep insecurities; the worst combination for presidential temperament.

A colony on the moon is possible but not by the end of his imaginary term.

He is attempting to be visionary and forward thinking, and I applaud him for that. As one who has followed NASA and who is a strong advocate for the aerospace industry and initiatives in Hawaii, a colony by the end of his second term is not doable in my opinion. We are attempting to establish an International Lunar Research Park on the Big Island of Hawaii whose mission would be to support R & D with the idea of going back to the moon and staying there for a long period of time. There are many people in the public and private sector who want to continue supporting space exploration.

However, Gingrich’s timetable is a fantasy at this stage. A lunar colony can happen but practically speaking, not in eight years.

Establishment Republicans are so afraid of Newt Gingrich they'd probably pool their money into a giant Super PAC spaceship to send him to the moon tomorrow. But here on earth, they will have to defeat him the old fashioned way, and Richard Branson will reach the moon sooner than Newt Gingrich.

Beyond the obvious space coast pandering, Newt Gingrich has a point: lunar exploration helps us better understand science, technology and yes, global warming, so by all means let's encourage a moonshot. We can begin with the STEM science technology engineering and math investments here on earth to ensure American competitiveness. President Obama's American Jobs Act and the Democrats Make it in America and Innovation Agenda are excellent sources of bipartisan solutions. Once we engage in robust nation building here on Earth and achieve economic surpluses, why not reach for the moon?

This is typical Newt, a grandiose idea with no regard to cost or feasibility. He's an idea factory - too bad many of them are not just "zany," they are absurd and unworkable. (See his idea to repeal child labor laws.) Not really the stable leader we want in the White House.

$15T of debt, $1T+ annual deficits, and the co-frontrunner for the presidential nomination of the allegedly fiscally conservative party is advocating a moon colony. You really couldn't make this up.

Call me zany, but I just don't get Newt's strategy of doing everything possible to feed into the caricature of him painted by his opponents. Fortunately he can pontificate about moon colonies while his Adelson-funded SuperPAC labors at the last minute to generate a ground game that his official campaign spent a year neglecting.

If I were him, I would be doing everything possible to come off like a solid, grounded, trustworthy person ready to roll up my sleeves and offer very specific policies to facilitate job growth. But then, I thought his campaign was over last June, so what do I know?

Jobs and the economy are currently the dominant concerns for a large number of Americans. To many Americans, particularly those that reside outside of Florida, Speaker Gingrich's moon colony idea may sound zany. However, that may not be the case with many Floridians. Since the 1950s, the NASA space program has been an integral part of Florida's economy and history. Thus, Gingrich's idea will probably resonate with primary voters there.

Gingrich's proposal, however, could backfire with the conservative base, a key voting bloc that Gingrich is courting. To fund his idea, Gingrich has proposed setting aside ten percent of NASA's budget for prizes to be awarded for the innovations that lead to the moon colony. He also promised to scrutinize NASA's bureaucracy. That might appease some conservatives. Others, however, may view Gingrich's proposed moon colony as nothing more than the use of big government to advance a big idea. Moreover, they may view with skepticismGingrich's suggestion that NASA's bureaucracy could shrink while the agency develops a moon colony.

Jeremy MayerAssociate Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University :

This is more evidence, as if any were needed, that Gingrich is a reliable fount of futurist poppycock, and a politician who lacks message discipline (among other disciplinary lacunae).

He also can't help pandering. He told this fantasy to one of the only audiences in America who would cheer it. I don't think "the moon colony gaffe" is going to be a major problem for Gingrich, but as a pattern of behavior, it should worry any Republicans who think he might be the nominee in November.

Newt’s permanent moon base, albeit a zany throwback to Space 1999 is interesting. Not necessarily in it’s budgetary realism or its priority compared to more pressing economic needs, but rather a solid example of his continuing plays to co-opt existing Democratic programs and reframe them in conservative terms.

Two years ago, President Obama launched the “Strategy for American Innovation” funded with $100 billion allocated by the Recovery Act. The president’s program encourages government agencies to issues awards for innovative and globally competitive commercial technology, energy, and infrastructure development.

Gingrich’s moon colony is an imaginary lunar bat-cave for a time not yet come. He would do better to stick to more realistic proposals that voters see as having an achievable and immediate thickening impact on their wallets. But he should be applauded for using the right language to court support from Florida’s space industry. (And it is certainly timely given this past Monday’s celebration of the Chinese Lunar New Year).

But I doubt Romney is going to get much mileage out of criticizing his grandiosity. Voters will probably append Moon Base Newt to a long list of Gingrich’s other fustian brainstorms. The substance of Gingrich ideas is secondary to attracting his ballooning base of followers. They are drawn to his anger at the political system and passion to become president.

This kind of comment will endear him with his core supporters and will turn off everyone else.

At a time when the country is still reeling from the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, there is little appetite for space travel never mind building a hotel on the Moon. It feeds into the idea that Gingrich is a loose cannon and is great fodder for team Obama in a potential general election matchup.

Newt is trying to make waves, be provocative and seduce the space coast. The trouble is, Republicans won't agree to fund road and bridge repairs and schools, so where are we getting the money to go to the moon and Mars? And why are we going?

Gingrich may be serious about it, but until he answers those questions, it is not a serious proposal (and until he belongs to a serious party, the questions will never get addressed.)

Well, it might well win him some votes in the "Space Coast" of Brevard County, where he spoke yesterday. Brevard is home to Cape Canaveral, and the region's many space workers are concerned about NASA's future. But elsewhere, Gingrich's comments may reinforce the perception that he is, well, weird.

Not in the least. In fact, it's a very small, modest idea - so much so that it makes you wonder how Gingrich developed a reputation as a big thinker.

The moon is so close that you don't need a colony there. With the right rockets, the trip is 9 hours - shorter than flying from LA to London. It might be nice if there were a Ritz there, and a Holiday Inn Express for the 99 percenters. But why would you bother building a colony there?

No, if the former speaker were as grandiose as he pretends to be, he'd be calling for a Martian colony. Mars is a much bigger mystery than the moon. There's far more to see, and it's past and present are far more relevant to us on earth than the moon is. And at best, it's a 214-day trip - too far to commute.

So the real questions for Newt are: why would you waste government money on a colony that we don't need? And what do you have against Mars? Do you fear the Martians are for Romney?

It portrays him more as a presidential candidate who's still caught up in the twentieth-century space race than as one who has innovative, scientifically minded ideas for confronting twenty-first century concerns.

Jonathan PrinceDemocratic consultant and former State Department official :

The problem with Newt is that he takes himself so seriously despite never having the discipline or commitment to be serious.

When JFK set America's sights on the moon, it was part of a national security race with the Soviet Union. Maybe, maybe, maybe somebody could come up with a coherent plan to create jobs and fund technological innovation that was organized in part around a moon plan - connecting it to the economy,which is what Americans actually care about right now. But Newt's latest off the cuff plan isn't about the economy, or anything else serious. He just thinks it's "cool." Which is okay for student council candidates, but not presidential ones.

He's clearly just pandering to Florida voters. We all know that Republicans, particularly tea party people, would never support the taxpayer - funding needed to support such a proposal. Newt knows it. But he'll say, do, insult, pander and degrade anyone in this election. Just like when he was speaker. The more thing change, the more the stay the same. Democrats can only hope he wins the nomination.

Mitt Romney’s tax returns reveal that while he reported he made $42.5 million over the past two years, he also gave away $7 million. Yet Romney said nary a word about his charitable giving, or the fact that he declined a salary as head of the 2002 Winter Olympics and as governor of Massachusetts.

If Romney doesn’t get the GOP nomination, It won’t be because he’s rich; it will be because he’s interminably boring.

Mitt’s caught in the Obama/Gingrich squeeze on the tax issue. It may not be fatal; indeed, these days, Romney’s problem is a thousand small cuts - not a single large one.

In any case, the last thing he needs now is to try to explain his returns away by presenting himself as a rich guy who gives money to charity and turns down compensation for public service. Noble, but damage is done. Move on if he can.

Perhaps Romney is reluctant to highlight his religious affiliation and he might want to avoid impressions of grandstanding. However, it was surprising that once he agreed to discuss his tax returns, he did not mention his charitable giving or refusals to take a salary when providing public service.

It's an important aspect of the income tax question, and it should help with his need to forge stronger personal connections with voters. Their judgments of his character will matter much more than their assessments of his ideas.

It's also surprising that the press has not given more attention to the charitable giving of candidates, whether in the case of Romney now or in the past with other candidates. It's always useful to know whether people put their money where their mouths are.

Yes, Romney is being too self-effacing for his own good. Further, yes, he is being treated unfairly.

Yes, President Obama has important members of his administration (notably Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner) who, unlike Romney, actually didn’t pay the taxes they legally owed until audited by the IRS. Yes, tax rates are being routinely misrepresented in this debate by confusing marginal tax rates with total tax rates - for example, a family of four with an income of $50,000 typically pays around five percent in federal income taxes, not the 25 percent that is the family’s marginal tax rate.

Yes, most of Romney’s income was already taxed once before being paid to him (the longstanding double taxation of dividends). But this is politics, and the president is running on the theme of class warfare, so Gov. Romney should expect to be pummeled for paying “only” $6.2 million in income taxes for those two years, in addition to the $7 million he’s given away.

Romney’s political problem - and perhaps a personal strength - is that he does not like to talk about the good things that he does for others in his private life.

I think that is the whole problem with the tax issue; he did not want to showcase how much he makes not because it was a political liability - everyone knows he is extremely wealthy - but because it looks like bragging. I think the tax issue is a huge red herring and will soon disappear, but I also thought it worth noting that Ann and Mitt Romney give about 15 percent of their income to charity - including a great deal to non-church related charities - while Callista and Newt Gingrich give less than three percent.

Gingrich has taken every chance in recent years to use his fame (or notoriety, depending on how you see him) to add to his personal wealth; that is the story that Romney has not conveyed very well as he has sparred over the technical definition of lobbying. Romney, because of his personal wealth, has been able to give back to society without taking a salary. That does not make one better than the other; it does make them different.

Romney has been generous with charitable giving, but he's not going to talk much about it.

First, it's unseemly for a candidate to brag about such things. Second, much of that giving was to the Mormon church, which gives some voters pause. Third, and most importantly, he would prefer to stop the chatter about his tax returns and focus on other issues where he is better positioned. He made the tax forms public in the hopes of getting past them.

This is the lesson of Republican politics today: modesty and self-effacement will get you killed in the primary arena.

Unless Mitt Romeny can get as low as Newt Gingrich, he will not be able to overtake him. Newt has a Ph.D and he was not smart enough to get on the ballot in some states, and he is still overtaking the former governor. Speaking of Ph.Ds: anyone notice that not only are few Republicans in Congress coming forward for Gingrich, but also none of his former fellow faculty members are jumping up to give warm remembrances of Newt's time as a colleague in the ivory tower? Man! The speaker burns bridges like General Sherman burned through Newt's native Georgia.

Again, what will it take for Republicans to accept Mitt Romney? As a Democrat, I am beyond perplexed as to why the primary audience across the aisle is rejecting a one-woman man who has made tons of money and then gives it to his church and charities! The party of faith and family is voting to back Newt Gingrich, a petulant man whose moral compass spins like a centrifuge and is leaving Mitt, the embodiment of their traditional platform, standing at the altar. And why is Newt surging when everything about his personal and professional life points to oblivion? One thing, folks: self-promotion!

At the Florida debate earlier this week, Speaker P.T. Barnum took credit for everything that has happened in American government for the past 50 years. Starting with his student work for Barry Goldwater through his being Ronald Reagan’s right hand, bringing down the Soviets, inventing the question mark, etc., Newt Gingrich has been the pivotal force behind our country’s success. Of course during this time Vietnam was occurring: maybe if he had gone into the military he would have put his Midas touch on the conflict and thousands of American lives would have been saved. Too bad able-bodied Newt could not find time for it…

As a historian, Newt is a hell of a speaker. Ronald Reagan never gave a damn about Gingrich, no matter how much Newt speaks of the Gipper the way Skywalker would Yoda. It is akin to someone saying that Bruce Springsteen wrote his songs about them because they stopped for gas in Asbury Park. None of the things Newt says is true, but it doesn’t matter: saying it louder makes it true! Now, I am not advocating for Mr. Romney as a candidate. I admire his charity and his health care plan, but I have personally been affected by companies like Bain Capital. While shareholders enjoy the dividends, factories are shuttered and machines are sold off like items on eBay, flung to the far corners of the earth so that products can be made cheaply and sold to Americans at the same or higher prices. (Ever notice that even though products are outsourced, their prices never go down when they appear back on our shores? You have never seen the price of a car go down from one model year to the next, no matter where it was assembled). Millions of American workers did the right thing, living within their means, buying a modest home, and getting up every morning to put their hand to the plow to contribute to the building of this great experiment…and then someone who you have never met comes in, sends your plow to a country where they do not have to worry about things like the environment or workers rights, and then blame you as they jump on their Gulfstream V with gilded copies of "Atlas Shrugged." Screwing working people then blaming them: what is more Republican than that?

In every category, Mitt is a Republican, but he cannot win the Republican nomination by just being what he is. He has to sell it. Modesty is not a platform planner in this incarnation of the GOP. In every segment of polite society it is expected that you do your good works in quiet, and that the reward is the knowing that you are blessed enough to do those things for others and thankful for the things you have in life. And even in my modest upbringing I was taught something that I am sure is repeated at affluent dinner tables: you do not talk about money in public. In this brave new world of conservatism, that kind of restraint is not going to fly. And unfortunately for the former governor of Massachusetts, he cannot play Newt’s game. When he tried to trot out the “Ted Kennedy had to re-fi his house to beat me” line, it came off as more awkward than Orville Redenbacher opening up a tattoo shop with Billy Graham. You just do not have that kind of vitriol inside of you, Mr. Romney. No one has the level of it that surges through Newt: even Satan and Stalin would have pause around the former speaker.

Governor, I know this from personal experience in the political job world: sometimes you can be everything that your party claims they want. You can be a boot strapping veteran who used education, hard work, and sacrifice to improve your lot and scale heights unattainable even in your dreams…and be rejected by thousands of entities because they want to go with someone who is everything you’re not. You cannot explain it. They tell you it isn’t personal (even though since you and I are persons, it’s personal: Latin isn’t that tough a language, folks), they thank you for applying or crossing the country to interview for a job they were never going to give you, and you keep plugging. They are going to smile at you and hope you will continue to support them with time, money and effort…and you will be struck dumb as to why they will not choose you. I totally understand. Just like Jon Huntsman understood that what they say want and what they do are at the complete opposite ends of the electoral spectrum. He is watching all this from home. And since Newt Gingrich is giving bread and circus to the masses, I fear you will be, too.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.